Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
XLII or XLIII? Which was better? XLII or XLIII? Which was better?
View Poll Results: 42 or 43?
SB 42
75 55.15%
SB 43
61 44.85%

02-02-2009 , 09:45 AM
well Pats/Rams I thought was the best of the 3 mentioned here. great game, actually the biggest upset ever

(Giants/Pats, Steelers/Cardinals)

last nights game was certainly great for the last 25 minutes or so. the Cardinals for much of the game were a bit sloppy, dropping passes, Dback falling down, etc
XLII or XLIII? Which was better? Quote
02-02-2009 , 10:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kneel B4 Zod
well Pats/Rams I thought was the best of the 3 mentioned here. great game, actually the biggest upset ever

(Giants/Pats, Steelers/Cardinals)

last nights game was certainly great for the last 25 minutes or so. the Cardinals for much of the game were a bit sloppy, dropping passes, Dback falling down, etc
Cardinals also weernt tackling anybody for the first 40 minutes. So many times it looked like they had a defender there for a loss or only a small gain only to have the Steelers gain 5-8 yard on the play
XLII or XLIII? Which was better? Quote
02-02-2009 , 10:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JordanIB
roughing the passer says hi
That was a bit ticky tack, but the refs have always babied quarterbacks. This isn't new.

the only other one I can remember is a defensive holding on Arizona that gave Pitt 5 yards where I was like "really? you called that?"

But out of 16 penalties if you're going to cite one that's always always always called as being evidence for a poorly reffed game, you've done a poor job stating your case.
XLII or XLIII? Which was better? Quote
02-02-2009 , 10:33 AM
People who aren't saying 42, are forgetting just how tense the whole first half was. You thought the Giants would need to get up to at 14 point lead, because you just knew the Pats offense was going to blow up eventually. In the first half you kept thinking, oh wow the pats are finally going to score here, when they didn't you thought the Giants kept blowing their chances. Every possession was incredibly tense, the game reminded me a lot of a baseball game.
XLII or XLIII? Which was better? Quote
02-02-2009 , 10:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyro
That was a bit ticky tack, but the refs have always babied quarterbacks. This isn't new.

the only other one I can remember is a defensive holding on Arizona that gave Pitt 5 yards where I was like "really? you called that?"

But out of 16 penalties if you're going to cite one that's always always always called as being evidence for a poorly reffed game, you've done a poor job stating your case.
You said there wasn't a single call you disagreed with. I just think simply because there are always horrendous roughing the QB calls doesn't make this one something I wouldn't disagree with the refs on.

I also disliked the facemask penalty. I thought the point of the rule change was to get rid of the ones that would have previously been 5-yarders, but maybe I misunderstand the rule change.

The ruling that Warner fumbled the ball that Arizona had to challenge was also a horrendous on-the-field ruling. Usually I am in favor of leaning towards making the call that is reversible through replay, but that was so ridiculously obvious.

I also didn't love the personal foul call on PIT when they had the skirmish on the AZ sideline. To me that was no worse than any of the other little temper flares throughout the game. Heat of the moment, you can let that go (unlike the Harrison crap which has to be called).

I could go on. The fact that holding seemed to be called on every friggin' play was frustrating. Those often depend simply on what crew is working the game, but it really ruins the flow of the game when it seems like you're flagging every offensive play.

So yeah, far more than 1 play that made me feel the game was poorly officiated.

(The defensive holding you cited I actually completely agreed with. Hood grabbed the WR's jersey right as he made his break to the middle.)
XLII or XLIII? Which was better? Quote
02-02-2009 , 10:46 AM
This one is actually pretty tough for me though it wasn't initially.

My initial reaction after the game was that last year's was still better. I enjoyed last year's more but this year had so many huge plays. I think the fact that this year's was bogged down with penalties (ticky-tack or not) sort of gave it a sloppy feel for a significant portion of the game. Whereas last year's just felt more hard-nosed/physical and all around cleaner for the bulk of the game before the epic ending.

That being said, the big name players making big time plays (on both teams) in this year's was something else.

I think I'll still go with XLII, closer than I initially thought though after giving it some more thought this morning.

And I think it's awesome that we can even have this GOAT discussion for back to back super bowls, because I remember all of those super bowls from the 90s. The super bowl that got me hooked to the game was XXV (Bills/Giants), and I remember that almost decade long stretch of blowout super bowls which made the super bowls from this decade that much more satisfying as a fan to watch. This decade was just incredible.

Last edited by tereg; 02-02-2009 at 10:57 AM. Reason: clarification
XLII or XLIII? Which was better? Quote
02-02-2009 , 10:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dustybottoms
I'm a Giant fan, and this one was definitely better. Harrison play >>> Eli/tyree play (hard to admit),
This probably comes down to defining how you judge "big" or "better". For me (also a Giants fan), Catch 42 >>> Harrison.

The only thing bigger I can see about the Harrison play was the momentum shift that it caused.

Both were probably essential to each team winning the game.

But the actions and maneuvers of the Tyree catch were just so superior. First, a pocket QB with no escape abilities is basically sacked but somehow breaks free. And then a 4th string WR pins the ball against his helmet with one hand and holds on as he's hit by one of the most imposing safeties in the league who is trying to rip the ball out. No contest, IMO.

I liken the Harrison play more to the Jermaine Lewis TD return in XXXV. Huge momentum shifter and a great individual effort. But my reaction was much more "Wow, great play, and how the hell did he never go OOB??" as opposed to "Wowowowow, soooo sick!!"
XLII or XLIII? Which was better? Quote
02-02-2009 , 10:49 AM
am I the only one who has absolutely no idea which Super Bowl (by #, or roman numeral, or w/e) is which?

I of course have watched all of them and remember them, but you need to refer to them by Giants/Bills or w/e or I have no idea what you're talking about. mb just me.
XLII or XLIII? Which was better? Quote
02-02-2009 , 10:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kneel B4 Zod
am I the only one who has absolutely no idea which Super Bowl (by #, or roman numeral, or w/e) is which?

I of course have watched all of them and remember them, but you need to refer to them by Giants/Bills or w/e or I have no idea what you're talking about. mb just me.
Whoops, sorry about that.
XLII or XLIII? Which was better? Quote
02-02-2009 , 11:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kneel B4 Zod
am I the only one who has absolutely no idea which Super Bowl (by #, or roman numeral, or w/e) is which?

I of course have watched all of them and remember them, but you need to refer to them by Giants/Bills or w/e or I have no idea what you're talking about. mb just me.
Same. I'll only know the last 2-3 years, and then the ones in which my team played.
XLII or XLIII? Which was better? Quote
02-02-2009 , 11:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie.Dont.Surf
Seriously?
Exactly. I think ultimately this question comes down to the final drive that is "more memorable," if that can be somehow measured, and I think that the Giants' game-winning drive will always be remembered first and really will be the "go-to" standard comparison for announcers to make (several times Al Michaels referenced Tyree and Manning etc.), and will continue, thus being in the forefront of the public's collective minds. Therefore I think Super Bowl XLII wins this.
XLII or XLIII? Which was better? Quote
02-02-2009 , 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperUberBob
SB 42 will be more memorable twenty or thirty years from now because of its storyline. A heavily favored undefeated Goliath was chasing history and ended up being beaten by the lowly Giants. It was one of the greatest upsets in Super Bowl history, if not NFL history. The Patriots weren't just the favorite, they were the enormous favorite. They were favorites by 11 1/2 points in Vegas. It was the largest spread for any Super Bowl. It's the NFL's version of Buster Douglas knocking out Mike Tyson.

There is absolutely no way 43 is better than 42.
Your equation left out one key factor: which GAME was more entertaining. You're merely telling the backstory of last year, which is indeed more compelling but can only carry an argument so far. Because of the numerous momentum swings I voted for this year but I also feel it's really close and it may take a few years to put them in perspective. Also, there's no reason they can't be AS good as each other. Except I guess in the sports world, where everything must be black and white and there must be a winner.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kneel B4 Zod
am I the only one who has absolutely no idea which Super Bowl (by #, or roman numeral, or w/e) is which?

I of course have watched all of them and remember them, but you need to refer to them by Giants/Bills or w/e or I have no idea what you're talking about. mb just me.
No, you are definitely not. If people wanted their point to be understood they should refer to the game by matchup, not number.
XLII or XLIII? Which was better? Quote
02-02-2009 , 12:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JordanIB
I could go on. The fact that holding seemed to be called on every friggin' play was frustrating. Those often depend simply on what crew is working the game, but it really ruins the flow of the game when it seems like you're flagging every offensive play.
the cardinals were holding like crazy in an attempt to slow down the steelers pass rush. you can't let that go just because it "ruins the flow of the game".
XLII or XLIII? Which was better? Quote
02-02-2009 , 12:31 PM
it was a great game except for one thing

Penalties.

Legit or not (and I thought there were many questionable calls and non-calls), there were far, far too many penalties in the game.

In comparison, last year's game, which featured three lead changes in the 4th quarter including two "last minute" drives, was a very clean game penalty wise.

Plus, the greatest play in Super Bowl history occurred on the game-winning drive (as well as a 4th-and-1 and 3rd-and-11 conversion). And it was against the 18-0 Patriots, who were supposedly the best team in NFL history.
XLII or XLIII? Which was better? Quote
02-02-2009 , 12:59 PM
In terms of dramatic conclusion I still have to put Giants-Bills and Giants-Pats at the top, just because they were the only "win or lose on the last drive" situations I can think of.
If the Titans score vs. the Rams it goes to overtime (I thought Fischer should've kicked the xp down 16-6 though I'm sure 2p2 disagrees), if the Steelers have to settle for a FG last night it goes to OT, 49ers-Bengals same thing but everyone including Sam Wyche knew the 49ers were going to score a TD.
XLII or XLIII? Which was better? Quote
02-02-2009 , 01:04 PM
To me, the ridiculously awesome final quarter of 43 doesn't completely make up for the extreme ****tyness of the first 3 quarters, the huge amount of penalties, and the fluky BS of the Harrison INT return.
XLII or XLIII? Which was better? Quote
02-02-2009 , 01:47 PM
Giants/Pats>Rams/Titans>>>Steelers/Cardinals
XLII or XLIII? Which was better? Quote
02-02-2009 , 02:13 PM
Rams Titans is my personal favourite with yesterday and Giants Pats level behind it.
XLII or XLIII? Which was better? Quote
02-02-2009 , 02:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JordanIB
You said there wasn't a single call you disagreed with. I just think simply because there are always horrendous roughing the QB calls doesn't make this one something I wouldn't disagree with the refs on.

I also disliked the facemask penalty. I thought the point of the rule change was to get rid of the ones that would have previously been 5-yarders, but maybe I misunderstand the rule change.

The ruling that Warner fumbled the ball that Arizona had to challenge was also a horrendous on-the-field ruling. Usually I am in favor of leaning towards making the call that is reversible through replay, but that was so ridiculously obvious.

I also didn't love the personal foul call on PIT when they had the skirmish on the AZ sideline. To me that was no worse than any of the other little temper flares throughout the game. Heat of the moment, you can let that go (unlike the Harrison crap which has to be called).

I could go on. The fact that holding seemed to be called on every friggin' play was frustrating. Those often depend simply on what crew is working the game, but it really ruins the flow of the game when it seems like you're flagging every offensive play.

So yeah, far more than 1 play that made me feel the game was poorly officiated.

(The defensive holding you cited I actually completely agreed with. Hood grabbed the WR's jersey right as he made his break to the middle.)
Don't forget Santonio not getting called for a celebration penalty on the winning TD. He used the ball as a prop (salt shaker), which is one of the only clearly prohibited celebrations. Those 15 yards were pretty important at that stage.
XLII or XLIII? Which was better? Quote
02-02-2009 , 03:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikhail's Fortunes
If I was a Cardinals fan I'd definitely be pissed, but as just a football fan I hate it when huge plays are called back because of penalties, I mean imagine if the Cal-Stanford kickoff return had been called back, or if Diego Maradona's "hand of God" goal had been taken away. It would be just destroying incredible sports history because of some technicality. Plays as great as those should transcend the rules at least to some extent. It's the same with the Harrison runback, if that touchdown had been taken away either by penalty or review, it would have been a giant fail. Again I realize if you're a fan of the victimized team it sucks ass but for the sports world in general it's the best thing.
my god
maybe it's because 'my' teams have been on the bad end of these more often than not, but this is the exact thing I hate in sports

these are not technicalities... these are blatant rule violations that make the play possible
if the block in the back on the Harrison return was some guy 5 yards behind the play that wasn't going to catch up to Harrison, that would be a technicality

Blowing out the guy who took the perfect angle to cut Harrison off from coming close to the end zone is not a technicality... it's the equivalent of a defender hauling down a WR running by himself for a wide-open bomb
XLII or XLIII? Which was better? Quote
02-02-2009 , 03:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JordanIB
Cardinals also weernt tackling anybody for the first 40 minutes. So many times it looked like they had a defender there for a loss or only a small gain only to have the Steelers gain 5-8 yard on the play
huh? while there were some missed tackles, the Steelers only had 2.2 ypc and 5.0 ypp
That is not poor tackling IMO
XLII or XLIII? Which was better? Quote
02-02-2009 , 03:17 PM
I think the drama of the undefeated team falling in dramatic fashion gives 42 the edge, even though 43 had several more dramatic plays.

Both are top 5 ever Super Bowls.
XLII or XLIII? Which was better? Quote
02-02-2009 , 03:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by UATrewqaz
I think the drama of the undefeated team falling in dramatic fashion gives 42 the edge, even though 43 had several more dramatic plays.

Both are top 5 ever Super Bowls.
Which one does this Super Bowl knock out? Bills-Giants? Jets-Colts? Bengals-9ers?
XLII or XLIII? Which was better? Quote
02-02-2009 , 03:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyTurn2Raise
huh? while there were some missed tackles, the Steelers only had 2.2 ypc and 5.0 ypp
That is not poor tackling IMO
maybe espn.com is lying to me, but it claims 7.8 ypp for the steelers.
XLII or XLIII? Which was better? Quote
02-02-2009 , 03:41 PM
58 plays for 292 yards

yahoo has 5.0
my math seems to match

over 2 ypp less than the Cardinals... very, very tough to win a game with that stat line
XLII or XLIII? Which was better? Quote

      
m